Super Best Audio Friends
The evolution of the original irreverent and irrelevant and non-authoritative site for headphone measurements, i.e. frequency response graphs, CSD waterfall plots, subjective gear reviews. Too objective for subjectivists; too subjective for objectivists
- @supertransformingdhruv impressions: https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/schiit-tyr-monoblocks.12178/#post-379981
- @purr1n impressions: https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...chiit-tyr-monoblocks.12178/page-2#post-381033
- Measurements and analysis: https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...iews-and-impressions.12178/page-4#post-381613
My ZD is really sorted right now and very good with my HD800. Reminding me how good it is. Not a ZD Super, but has had some work by Craig/Marv a few years ago to update it some.
The Moth is better with modded 650. I tried lots of headphones with Moth the other night. I suspect I could roll NOS in place of the new production 6SL7GT driver tubes but it it is already very good! The leading edge transients on Moth are ridiculous, lots of good/quick detail with mids to treble. But with 800 needs some smoothing on top and a bit more bottom end. Elex would be good but bass is missing some control, probably due to needing to adjust internal jumpers for lower impedance. I need to see where the jumpers are at for the speaker impedance inside.
Still some lower level hum with Moth at higher volume levels that might be a ground thing. Using an Isomax though for everything on the table...not as bad as when resistors were bad on regulators. Pulled out the HD600 today. Craig did recommend that exact headphone in the Moth manual...prefer Marv-modded HD650 for cleaner bass.
The more I read about the tech inside, the more intrigued I got about the Dave. The things Rob Watts was saying about digital filtering lined up alot more with what I know about digital sampling from my signals and systems classes in school and reading I've done since. (As an aside, Rob Watts has alot of ideas, right or wrong, about why we hear differences in things that we do, his blog on head-fi is an interesting read). I never in a million years thought the Dave would actually be my preferred DAC versus the Wavedream. Based on the other impressions I have read I thought it would turn out to just be soso, and I would sell it off and go about my business, but I was still interested enough to want to hear one, and I wanted to give it a fair shake, postulating that the filtering may take time to appreciate, so I decided to purchase one.
The downside is that there is no USB input. The ERC-4 only has coax and optical inputs. If we want USB functionality, grab a cheap used Schiit Eitr (good synergy) or Singxer USB to SPDIF converter. A little bit extra cost, but the ERC-4 at $600 is somewhat of a steal. The sound is closer to that of the well-regarded Convert-2 than the Lavry DA11. The tl;dr version is that the ERC-4 doesn't have the murkiness in the lows of the DA11. It exhibits the clarity, excitement, and sweetness of the Convert-2, and may actually be more resolving...
The PC38X is an update to the PC37X reviewed here: https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...nnheiser-pc37x-review-and-measurements.11072/ All of the great things I've said about the PC37X apply to the PC38X. The PC38X appears to be a tweaked PC37X that brings up the mids. This is a good thing for gaming because I felt the PC37X mids were just slightly recessed. The PC38X has less of that Sennheiser broad bass bump too.
In general, I would say that the Atrium is bassy and dark sounding headphone. There's a slight mid-bass boost (the bass is hefty and punchy). The lower and mid treble are muted, although there's some decent air, at least with the Universe pads. Unlike the Verite, there doesn't seem to be as much of a upper-mid depression, if there is any at all. Plankton seems to be on a similar level. Overall speed of transients isn't quite as fast, although the attacks are more biodyna crisp. Again, these are early and initial impressions (before any measurements were taken). FWIW, I have the Verite Closed headphone as part of my regular rotation of three or four - this going on for years now.
Schiit Modi 3E
AmirNAD being defined as SINAD with a steady-stage 1kHz tone at 0dbFS output using 20kHz bandwidth using an APx555 with the cheat-mode High Performance Sine Analyzer turned on.
The Schiit Modi 3E at 114db AmirNAD is a bit off the pace. In Formula 1, the Modi 3E would finish near the back of the pack. Therefore if you believe that AmirNAD is a primary determinant of sound quality and state of the art-ness, then I could only somewhat recommend the Modi 3E. Part of what limits the 3E is that the powerplant isn't as good. The 9018 (or 9016) isn't anywhere as good as the ESS9038 parts used at the top. However, some credit should go to Schiit as they've betterered the prior AKM4490 based Modi 3+'s AmirNAD by 3db or so! ...
The Modi 3E slaughters its competition when it comes to AmirNAD per USD. It's not even close. In fact, scientifically and objectively speaking, we cannot hear anything different when AmirNAD is better than 110db. This said by the man himself (not I). Therefore there is no reason to get any other DAC if you looking at this objectively and belong in the cult of AmirNAD.
To get things out of the way, the LCD-X subscribes to Audeze's stock tuning of laid-back upper mids. However, being of the Reference Line, it's less recessed, more toward neutral, than that of the LCD-2. Those who subscribe to Dr. Sean Olive's Headphone Target (rtings, ASR, etc.) may come away disappointed. The bass while hefty and extended, isn't boosted. The tuning from 2kHz-6khz, the presence region, is in fact opposite to the Harmon Target. People who like IEMs voiced for Chinese market or the Focal Utopia even, will very likely dislike the LCD-X's tonal signature. I'm not going to be one to judge for you, but I will say that Audeze's voicing has a lot of fans and hence why they've been successful for all these years.
copied from a profile discussion that is worthy of a thread
The question I’m asking is why headphones cost so much more than speakers and why the markup is so much more. Why are people ok with this?
I have personally taken apart dozens of Audeze headphones. The LCD-5 is the cheapest headphone to manufacture that they’ve ever made by far yet their most expensive by far. No wood, which Sankar has personally said was the most difficult part of manufacture, no metal parts, it’s mostly plastic and very simple in construction. I would actually wonder whether the LCD-2 costs more to make than the LCD-5.
Over 1k iems are ridiculous.
I really think there is a fetishization of sorts happening that allows people (us included) to pay that much.
The first time I ever heard of them was just a couple months ago, when an audiophile I've been chatting with for a while mentioned the manufacturer and the dac in question. Supposedly it was much better than Soekris dac2541, which of course immediately sparked my interest. Lab dac1 reference's MSRP here is 2950€, which places it pretty close to other known qualities like Yggdrasil, Burl Bomber, DM Convert-2 etc.
The dac1 reference is based on eight Philips TDA1543 multi-bit chips, which are apparently older multi-bit chips meant for lower cost devices. This was actually the first time I got to listen a dac based on this particular dac chip, so I didn't know at all what to expect. Other related buzzwords are NOS and tube output. Actually, tube output in a dac was also something that I hadn't experienced before. Exciting times ahead!
This used out of warranty USB dildo broke from a Galvanic Isolator. At least that's what the person who owned it before me told me. They used it over two years, until the Galvanic Isolator attached to it got hot and destroyed the USB port. Now the company that made the USB dildo says this is impossible and won't help me! I asked for a XMOS part for self-repair, but they won't send that to me either! Can you guys help?
This is a $500 consumer electronic product that is not meant to be serviced by the consumer. If you really have the IT support experience you claim, you understand all too well that 98.874% of consumer electronic companies are not in any position to "just sell you an XMOS chip", and your intentionally being manipulative with this unreasonable request. Go source your own XMOS chip. Another reason to close your ticket. Your ticket is now closed and will not be reviewed any further.